Socialism is the best ideology

page: 18
43
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by amfirst1
Socialism doesn't work. It's too easy to hijack. Once u hijack the power structure there is basically no competition to stop u and u have a complete control over every aspect of the government and people.. For this reason socialism doesn't work in the real world. It has proven time and time again to be a failure because once a few people gain power they won't let it go and really no one can stop them.


Any model that provides more dignity, equality and solidarity than the 'strong leaders' model (democracy, socialism, communism and anarchy) can be hijacked by strong leaders to re-establish the 'strong leaders' model - if the people allow it. That is exactly what happens constantly everywhere on the planet. "We the people" are lulled into a false sense of 'democracy': once every say four year or so we are allowed to choose one of the self-proclaimed 'leaders' and then have to sit back for four years to see them fight their fights in our name, break every promise they make in our name and decide for us instead of with us. That has nothing to do with democracy, let alone with socialism.

That's why I believe that anarchy would be best: all people live in harmony and there is no need for a state, nation, self proclaimed leaders or whatever, Alas, that's Utopian and may always remain Utopian, as it requires a very benevolent and goodwilling population.

But the fact that we're not there does not say we should not strive for it. If you think that the current situation is the best we can do, by all means, don't do anything then. I beg to differ!




posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ForteanOrg
 


How does anarchy stop the "strong leader" complex from taking over eventually ?

Wouldn't you find somebody in any small group that would attempt a takeover ?

Wouldn't any group always have dependent people within the group ?

It's not easy to fight Mother Nature.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by ForteanOrg
 


How does anarchy stop the "strong leader" complex from taking over eventually ?

Wouldn't you find somebody in any small group that would attempt a takeover ?

Wouldn't any group always have dependent people within the group ?

It's not easy to fight Mother Nature.


Dude, you've been told we are talking of "models" here. I suggested talking supermodels, but it didn't take.

Boo Hoo.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by ForteanOrg
 


How does anarchy stop the "strong leader" complex from taking over eventually ?


If the overwhelming majority of people are anarchists, they can resist 'take-overs'. Simply by not rewarding the ones that try to 'take over', not listening to them, not doing it their way. See, the point of being 'the boss' is that you have folks to boss...



Wouldn't you find somebody in any small group that would attempt a takeover ?


Only if it is rewarding. What would he or she get from it in an anarchistic society? Power? Over what? Over whom? Nobody would accept leadership other than that based on a persons contributions to society. Say, a brilliant scientist or a good doctor, a man that works hard to help others etc. - they would be recognized by their peers for their contributions to society, not for what they have or take. If you want to see 'anarchy' at work, check out the Open Source movement. This also makes clear that anarchy and chaos don't mix, and that terrorism is the total and utter ENEMY of anarchism. A lot of nonsense is being told about anarchy..


Wouldn't any group always have dependent people within the group ?


Yes, of course, any civilised society is depending on cooperation and solidarity.


It's not easy to fight Mother Nature.


I think anarchism is very close to how Nature works. There are complex interrelations between animals, but nobody 'rules' them, nor do they fight unless there is scarcity. People are smart enough to prevent scarcity - if we simply stop fighting each other for nonsensical reasons like 'having power'..



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Socialism doesn't work. It's too easy to hijack. Once u hijack the power structure there is basically no competition to stop u and u have a complete control over every aspect of the government and people.. For this reason socialism doesn't work in the real world. It has proven time and time again to be a failure because once a few people gain power they won't let it go and really no one can stop them


I think your confusing an economic theory with a political one, because democratic socialism could never work. Right?

Socialism, communism and capitalism, are economic theory; democracy or dictatorship is not inherent to any, for example many capitalist countries are also dictatorships. Like no interest groups have "hijacked" capitalism or western democracy and no oligarchs exist where generations have lived off stolen capital? Come to think of it, capitalism was set up that way.
edit on 29-6-2013 by Redarguo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   



That's why I believe that anarchy would be best: all people live in harmony and there is no need for a state, nation, self proclaimed leaders or whatever, Alas, that's Utopian and may always remain Utopian, as it requires a very benevolent and goodwilling population.

But the fact that we're not there does not say we should not strive for it. If you think that the current situation is the best we can do, by all means, don't do anything then. I beg to differ!


As the theory goes, anarchism would be the end state of history, a classless, stateless world. However I don't think that it is possible any time soon, conflict over resources and lack of technology being the main reasons IMO. But like you said evolution of society should be something to strive for.

Capitalism has provided the infrastructure for the transition to socialism. I think in general, my self included, that people at times willfully delude themselves about capitalism (especially its stability), ie capitalism is based on the projected increase in profit- continuous expansion. We all know that this is impossible, that property for example can not keep increasing in value relative to wages, that the speculative market will continuously boom and bust.

Its not so much that I believe the system is broken than that its served its purpose ( industrialization was a good thing despite its brutality) and we should move on, regardless of those who hold the concentrated wealth' reluctance. Nationalization of central banks, resources and key social industry/services would be a good place to start and run at cost, with out profit going to an unnecessary middle man.
edit on 29-6-2013 by Redarguo because: sp



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   
We need a model which takes the best aspects of existing systems and combines them into something new.

Allow it to evolve, as long as everyone gets what they need.

Some people will always be accused of being slackers, let them get by on the minimum if that pleases them, if they are satisfied with it so be it....

Let those who are willing to go above and beyond average be compensated for it, but not with power, not to be like the modern day monarchy we have today.

Some say there will always be those who would take without contributing, who steal, but if everyone had what they needed to begin with, that element would be minimized, some elements cannot be eliminated because they have always been there, like those who take advantage (capitalists).

Makes no sense that so many are unemployed/underemployed, when there are those who work 80 hours per week, 4 people who work 50 hours per week cost one person a job altogether.

Crime comes from deprivation, from people being beaten down no matter what they do to the point of saying "Why care about what other people think, why worry about hurting others when I am in so much pain". Same goes for people who try hard and are not compensated with even having their basic needs being met through their efforts because of the cost of living.

Capitalism works fine when building a country, like baby food does for a baby, it's time we went onto grown up food before we destroy ourselves and our planet.

My 00.02



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by MyHappyDogShiner
We need a model which takes the best aspects of existing systems and combines them into something new.


Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe (just maybe) there is no solution to this problem?

What I mean to say is this. What if humanity is simply a freak of nature and it's impossible for a species that is capable of thought (in the way human beings are) to survive without forever going in the direction of tyranny?

I don't think it's possible. I think power will always bring out the worst in anyone who gets near it. I don't care how the system is designed or what it's supposed to do. The fact remains that if someone has bad intentions and they need power, they will find a way to get the power they need.

No matter what kind of government/system you set up, you will invariably have to protect the control panel somehow so that not just anyone can walk in and take over.

But this "security system" will only work until someone figures out how to defeat it (and this is only a matter of time). Then they will turn things around so the security system actually works for them.

This is how it always works. No matter how well a given system works to begin with, decay will always set in after a while and it's impossible to do anything about it. This type of rot works exactly like cancer. Even if you had an opportunity to do some housecleaning, you cannot miss one bad cell. Bad people will always find a way in. And you can never discount the inevitability of people who believe they are good but are actually bad and they just don't know it. Unfortunately, the misguided can do just as much damage as the intentionally evil.



posted on Aug, 24 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
The title destroyed any credibility. Next time do this:

Socialism is a good ideology.

Well. Maybe. Maybe it was this statement that drew me to this thread.
I use controversial statements myself for that purpose too. Ok a better title:

Socialism is like good sex.

Now about socialism. Your thread made me look it up.
Whenever I hear socialism my brain connects it to authority, authority connects me with unhappy chemicals.
My father was a very authorial figure who I disliked, hence my unhappy chemicals. Anti-authority is wired into my brain.

Libertarian socialism sounds like something I would like but I got the feeling some prick would abuse it.



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by BrianFlanders
 

Did it ever occur to anyone that there is no answer to this problem because too damn many people accept that there is no answer to this problem, and just stop trying to find an answer?.

Why don't ya just say what the rest of these "chattel" around here say, "It's always been the way it is and I can't change it, oh well..."....

Frickinn, just MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO already.



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 08:19 AM
link   
The real problem with communism is that it doesn't consider the human nature of wanting more and more. It simply doesn't work.

A balanced left-wing government that rewards merit would be the best (give opportunity for those without it and reward their merit)



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by altairpeaceandsecurity
 

Communism is not the same as Socialism.

Communism is not the same as Socialism....



posted on Oct, 1 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   

fadedface
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


I only want to converse with people who have an understanding of communism and socialism and who don't dismiss it as being only supported by 'students' and 'professors'.

Maybe I should have raised this topic in a forum devoted specifically and entirely to political theory and debate but I was expecting more than the typical ham fisted and clichéd dismissals of socialism and communism here.

Then again I suppose a lot of the people who use this forum are americans and you seem to have some strange love of capitalism. Did you check the homelessness figures in your country lately? Good ol' capitalism eh?
edit on 17-5-2013 by fadedface because: spelling


Except America does not have a pure capitalist type of economic system. We have a combination of both socialist and capitalistic elements in our economic system. If we had a pure capitalist economy we would not have any social programs at all. However, if we had a totally socialist economic system then the freedom and competition would not exist. The problem with America today stems from both psychological and sociological issues because society is failing the individuals of society and the individuals are failing in society. The greed, laziness, and entitlement attitude is very prevalent because of that. As a result there are people out on the streets, the rich is getting richer, the lazy is getting lazier, and those that are doing most of the work for society are getting burned out. Neither socialism nor communism will cure that and capitalism will not be the cure.

BTW, you spoke of passive-aggressive is the way to get your revolution. If such a person were to become a leader for a country it would make a country that has no rights because the person would instantly become aggressive due to the huge ego boost that it would give him or her. A pure socialist society would require either a dictator or a sings party system, both of which would arrive at the same goal since a group of people have a tendency to engage in group-think which would result in involuntary bullying so everyone would think the same way. No new ideas would form from that which is why a diversity of viewpoints is needed in government in order to function properly.
edit on 1-10-2013 by WindWolf1974 because: added a few ideas





top topics
 
43
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join